This is basically what I’ve been mulling over in class for the past few weeks.

I really think that through History, Philosophy, English, and the church I’ve been attending on Sunday that God is trying to teach me some things. It’s been fascinating how He’s revealed Himself a bit more through verses, songs, conversations, and lectures. Well, here goes nothin’.

"I form light and create darkness,

I make success and create disaster;

I, Yahweh, do all these things."

Isaiah 45:7

(Go ahead, read the context--it’s fascinating! Isaiah 44:24-45:13 should do it justice.)

God creates the disaster and the darkness, he doesn't just allow it. God doesn't sin, He can’t, but He is sovereign over it. What does that even mean? Well, I know he doesn’t just sit back and let it happen, passively, like there is nothing He can do about it. So that must mean He is intentionally, intricately involved in everything that happens--he is powerful.

We have to trust Him. Before I knew God, it was impossible for me to get past all the suffering and the idea of God's sovereignty over it; that's why we must have a relationship with Him. Through knowing Him, I believe we are able to have more of a peace about it. I'm not going to pretend that I have this perfect formulated understanding of why we suffer, for it is very complex. I believe God can use suffering as a form of discipline, as a way to grow and strengthen us in our faith, as a way to reveal our weaknesses and His strengths, or even as a way to increase our effectiveness in ministry. Does that mean I believe that all is for the best? Well, yes, but for whose best is what is important. No matter what, God uses suffering to display His glory.

I think the whole idea of that the Deuteronomic promise applies to America today is just... irrelevant. And 2 Chronicles 7:14 is dangerous when taken out of context; I think it can deceive us into thinking that if the church, especially American christians, can be holy enough, our nation will start to prosper again. Or if we make a good enough show, people will catch on to the whole worshipping God thing and maybe they’ll like it in wake of a tragedy because it is comforting--if but only for a little while.

The falsity in that is that we only come to God wanting something, like our prosperity, but not willing to give Him everything. Until christians are willing to do that, we will not be effective in our communities or especially our nation. If we aren't willing to give up our pride, our comfort, our money, or our time, we won't reach anyone to tell them the truth of Jesus. If the church is doing anything wrong, I would say that is it’s problem. We aren’t responsible for our society--each individual is accountable for his or her own sin. The church, though, is being quite ineffective--and it’s because we can get so caught up in minute aspects of theology, in worship styles, in numbers--when none of that is more important than the glorification of God and the salvation of souls. There are lots of problems with today’s church, but chief among them is that we have forgotten our First Love.

If we could just give it all to the Lord, knowing that He is sovereign over the salvation of our friends, communities, cities, nations--the pressure would no longer be on us to be super holy, but on the Lord to make His glory known. He'll reveal Himself to those He chooses, and he will hopefully use us in the process.

I know--controversial, huh? No doubt there is tension in it, and we shouldn’t ignore it. God's ways are mysterious. Questions do arise, though. Why did Katrina happen? To say that New Orleans was hit by Katrina because it's a sinful place I think is wrong. We can't know that. We should refrain from judging people so harshly--we shouldn't be the ones casting the stones. How about we stand in awe of God a little more instead of always trying to figure Him out.

However much I don’t know about God, there is one thing I know for sure: His love. His love is strong, it is beautiful. No matter the suffering of this world, it is only temporary, only in this lifetime--and think, it is so insignificantly small in comparison to how great His benevolence is--and we get to experience that for eternity.

--Danielle

I commented on Lucy Beth's A Loss and It's Grief

well played sir

When I read near the end of Wesley's sermon, I thought about what he was saying from what I would guess to be his perspective. It was interesting to me how it seemed as though in section 8 he was, in a sense, challenging the listeners to believe what he was saying. As christians, our reaction a lot of the time to sermons that talk about our sins and failures is simply denial. We hear what is said and immediately treat it like it is being said to somebody else. In Wesley's sermon, this is exactly what he tries to prevent in section 8 when he says "Now let each of us lay his hand upon his heart and say, 'Lord, is it I?'." After presenting his congregation with ideas that they likely will want to deny, he challenges them to examine themselves.

The cool thing though, is what he does after he challenges them. In sections 9 and 10, it is almost as if Wesley assumes that his challenge has done its job in the way he essentially gives them different areas where people could struggle and thus improve on. I found this interesting mainly in the way Wesley seems to present his message. His challenge to his congregation, through his further instruction and appeals in sections 9 and 10, is proved to be in genuine concern and conviction for his flock's well being.

So I guess I'm sorry this isn't super in depth about what he's actually saying, I was actually just really impressed with how he challenged the listeners to this sermon. Too often, pastors will stop at simply convicting listeners without providing them any insight into what can be done. In Wesley's case, he presents them with the challenge, convicting them, and immediately after reveals his intentions very clearly to the listeners in his instruction and appeal to improve on their situation rather than simply dwell in their conviction.

All are punish'd...

I am going to go ahead and level with what a lot of people have been discussing whether on the blog or in person; class got a little off track and heavily focused on suffering the other day. But frankly, it furthered a lot of what Wesley was getting at with his discourse over the trouble with the colonies. It was not a sermon on suffering as it was looking to America and seeing what England had done as a nation. Take into consideration the scripture Wesley references in the opening portion of his sermon. "We have lately extended the British empire almost over the globe. We have carried our laurels into Africa, into Asia, in the burning and the frozen climes of American. And what have we brought thence? All of the elegance of vice which either the eastern or western world could afford." Wesley also acknowledges problems on both shores: "arbitrary power on one hand, and of anarchy on the other." Wesley sees the problems abroad as a result of the problems right in front of him. That is what Wesley was getting at. America was in turmoil because England was in turmoil. Consider why people left England to begin with. Clearly, there was a problem. And instead of cultivating the garden where they were, they chose to plant anew and with them came the scars of problems unresolved.

I cannot say it enough that Wesley's entire sermon is wrapped up in the following: "Reason is lost in rage; its small still voice is drowned by popular clamour. Wisdom is fallen in the streets. And where is the place of understand? It is hardly to be found in these provinces."

Concluding that both England and her American colonies are simultaneously suffering, I am going to end with what kept ringing in my ears, courtesy of William Shakespeare, perhaps you will find it applicable as well:

"Where be these enemies? Capulet! Montague!
See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate,
That heaven finds means to kill your joys with love.
And I for winking at your discords too
Have lost a brace of kinsmen: all are punish'd."

Romeo and Juliet, Act 5, Scene III

COMMENTED ON CALLIE'S "MOCK ON..."

It's not you it's me...

I think that Wesley strikes the core of a problem which has troubled man since the beginning of time. We all too often refuse to look at ourselves first before pointing fingers at those around us. It is much easier to lay the blame elsewhere. In his sermon Wesley says, "That vice is the parent of misery, few deny; it is confirmed by the general suffrage of all ages. But we seldom bring this home to ourselves; when we speak of sin as the cause of misery, we usually mean, the sin of other people, and suppose we suffer, because they sin. But need we go so far? Are not our own vices sufficient to account for all our sufferings? Let us fairly and impartially consider this; let us examine our own hearts and lives. We all suffer: and we have all sinned. But will it not be most profitable for us, to consider every one his own sins, as bringing sufferings both on himself and others; to say, "Lo, I have sinned, I have done wickedly; but these sheep, what have they done?"" It's easy to say "Oh it's the church's fault or the government's," but honestly the fault lies at home with each one of us. We point to others without first looking in the mirror. Everyone is guilty of this, including me.

To the question of who is responsible for calamities that fall on nations, I say that I don't know. I believe there is something to be said about God blessing a nation when its people are truly following Him. However, I don't believe that He always directly sends calamities to fall on their heads. It could just be that He removes His blessing and leaves us to our own devices which then bring calamities upon us. I also don't believe we can compare America to Israel. America is not God's chosen people. We are simply a nation that was built upon certain Godly principles and beliefs, but we were not chosen by God as His special children. We are the Gentiles. God extended His plan of salvation to us because the Jews rejected His Son, therefore certain guidelines and rules do not apply to us. I think that while Israel is responsible for their actions to God as a nation and He punishes or rewards accordingly, other nations are not because they are not God's chosen people.

Sorry about beating a dead horse

I know we are kinda running this topic of the church being responsible for the world and natural disasters being punishment for sin and stuff into the ground, but I would still like to throw a couple hats in the ring that anyone can try on and see how they fit.

In our discussion/debate on Tuesday I felt that it lacked a couple of foundations needed to make the arguments we were making.

1. We are kept arguing about the "church" being responsible. We said that the "church" was christians as a whole. But that can't be right because not all christians have the necessary skills and tools to be helpful to a non-saved world, and therefore it would be completely unreasonable to place any fault on them at all. For example: I go to downtown Mobile and get a homeless man saved. He has no money, no car, no friends, no nothing. However he is still a part of the "church" because he is a believer. But we cannot expect him to be able to contribute to "helping the world" in any way at all; so then we can't put the blood of the world on his hands. So the word "church" probably isn't the best term to use in this discussion. But anyways this is the point where you say, "Well it's not just about money it's about giving time and effort and having a 'good heart.' If your heart is in the right place you must be helping. Don't you know the story about the woman giving all she had to the church even though it wasn't that much." Well sure I do, but for someone to be responsible for something happening they must do one of 2 things: A) Be heavily invested in the outcome and acting towards an inerest or B) Do absolutely nothing. Both options make you responsible. If you act to influence an outcome you are obviously involved and if you do nothing even though you could do something, you are influencing the outcome by not acting; for example if I see a man drowning in a lake and I know that I can swim and save his life, but I choose not to and let him drown, I have just become responsible for his death (even though I did nothing I am still held responsible for his death, you would go to jail for this). So is it fair to say the church is responsible for the world being a bad place? No. It is much more reasonable to say that the "part of the church that is involved in influencing the outcome of society" is responsible.

2. This kinda goes along with the last one. Can I choose to forgoe my responsiblity and wipe the blood of the world from my hands? Pilot did it with Jesus didn't he? Pilot was clearly partially responsible for the death of Jesus, because he could have acted to save the "drowning man" but chose not to. He washed his hands. Is this option acceptable in our post-christian society that we live in? I think that all Christians should be heavily involved in reaching the lost and helping the world, but are they in the wrong if they choose not to? I haven't 100% made up my mind on that one yet. But if Christ will not force himself on any man, does that mean that he will not force the responsibility of taking care of the world on us? People argue this, "I accepted Jesus as my savior. I didn't accept or apply for the position of social worker to the world." Is that a valid argument? Can you still be a christian and think like this and have no compassion for the world what-so-ever? So can we again save the church is responsible if they have the option to cast aside their responsibilities? And if they do refuse them, who becomes responsible? Is every man responsible for his own life and tending his own garden?

3. Is sin 100% always wrong and punished? Now I am about to get really far out and say alot of bad things that will question Christian principles, but let me assure you I am a Christian and I don't believe this necessarily, but I am just playing devil's advocate and throwing it in to the deiscussion. The Bible says, "All have sinned..." and, "There is a season for all things..." Combine the context of these verses and a couple others you can find, and you may sumise one or two of two things: A) You will sin regularly and B) It is ok to sin regularly. How long do seasons last? Once in a lifetime? No, they happen every year. Does that mean that we are expected to sin on a regular basis? Because according to this, there is a (recurring) season of sin that we go through. Does this imply that we should expect to sin? Yes it does, we are human. All humans sin. But does this imply that it is ok when we do sin because it will be for a "season" that we are supposed to go through? Is it ok to justify sin like this. I heard this quote, "Do not be too moral. The straightest trees are cut down first." "Do not rob yourself of life by being too virtuous." That coupled with the scriptures kinda lead me to believe that sin in moderation is ok. And if we are expected to sin and go through a season of sinning, surely all those sins can't be punished. God is just and surely he wouldn't punish people for a season he is setting them up to go through? That doesn't sound too just to me, setting up someone for failure. So if all sin can't possibly be punished, we can't say that disasters are punishing the world for sin. A more accurate statement would be, "the world might possibly be punished for SOME of the sins committed by the people."

So my point is in all that is that we need to clarify those things before we can accurately have this debate. Otherwise we are arguing about something that has so many un-answered questions it in, our ending summation will be completely biased on one persons opinion, not the ending result of agreed upon facts.

But after saying all that.....this is what I think lol.

God knows all the plans he has for everyones life. He sees the end result, I don't. Who am I to argue about why he does or doesn't do stuff, and who he does or doesn't punish. So can we say the church is responsible? Sure/ofcourse not. Whatever floats your boat. Either way you're probably right. I'll leave you with this:

Everything happens for the good of the master plan, but is everything planned by the master? It says He will use everything for his good. It doesn't say he creates things that happen to use to his good. He can turn any situation (a hurricane, earthquake, whatever) into a path to reach his ending point that only He knows. A good general doesn't plan every point in a battle. But a good general does use all the points that comes up to his advantage. I think God may do the same. Not send a hurricane, but use the hurricane that happens to his advantage.

I didn't get to say all I wanted to but it's cool. This would be much better in person I promise lol. Peace.

I commented on Kaylie's I think.

My first official Blog! Wesley's Sermon!

   “Now let each of us lay his hand upon his heart and say, "`Lord, is it I?' Have I added to this flood of unrighteousness and ungodliness, and thereby to the misery of my countrymen? Am not I guilty in any of the preceding respects? And do not they suffer because I have sinned?" If we have any tenderness of heart, any bowels of mercies, any sympathy with the afflicted, let us pursue this thought till we are deeply sensible of our sins, as one great cause of their sufferings.” 

     This is the passage from Wesley’s sermon that spoke the loudest to me.  His sermon even though it was written hundreds of years ago, still seemed alive and applicable to me.  Why does the world suffer?  Is it because of everyone else’s sin?  Or is some of the misery in the world my fault?  Is it partly my failure in being a Christian? Maybe, just maybe, I’m responsible for my own sin(can you sense the sarcasm?).

    Wesley’s sermon encouraged me to stop doing ‘good’ things, or things that seemed ‘sensible’ and instead do the right things.  Things like, “Show mercy more especially to the poor widows, to the helpless orphans, of your countrymen who are now numbered among the dead, who fell among the slain in a distant land.”(section 10, sentence 3).  I want to pursue love, unity and concord, in Jesus Christ. I’d really like to see how much the Christian world will change if every Christian took this seriously and pursued after Christ in such a manner.


P.S. I commented on Ben's blog

/./

I thought that Tuesday’s class was really interesting. The idea of how the church is at fault for a lot of the nation’s problems and how sin is possibly to blame for disasters that occur is interesting to me. It sounded to me that some people think that the church is to blame when bad things happen, that somehow if as Christians we did something better along the way things would be better. I don’t necessarily think that the church is to blame. I think that the church’s job is to take action in times of crisis, but preventing crisis? That isn’t always possible. Now don’t get me wrong there is so much corruption in the church that there is probably some truth to the idea. But for me I just can’t put the blame on the church.

P.S commented on Danielle's post with a title that said somethin about coffee.......

Sin, Sin, Sin....

Everywhere we turn this year it seems like we're talking about sin. It's like it's going out of style. Last year it seemed as if all we talked about was sex this year it seems as if we turned from that to some extent to sin in general. Sex outside of marriage falls into this category and it is especially bad because it effects the inside of the where the other sins affect the outside.

Anyways back to the reading assignment. Wesley uses 2 Samuel 24:17 as the main verse in his sermon. "Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: But these sheep, what have they done?" The thing to think about here though is that the sheep have sinned too. To steal Ben's verse "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God." This means that everyone is subject to the punishment. We did in fact talk a lot about innocent people getting people getting punished. But who is innocent? Are good people innocent? Jesus asks the rich young ruler why the ruler called Jesus good then tells him that no one is good except for his father. Obviously Jesus is referring to his Heavenly father, God. So now we know that good people aren't innocent since in fact there are no good people. That leaves me to wonder if there are in fact any innocent people in the world. Even Noah who was the last just man on earth sinned after he got off the ark by getting into a drunken stupor where he was found naked by his sons and therefore causing them to sin. This leads me to believe that there is no good man or woman. Which brings up the thought of who's the least bad. There is a simply answer to this too. James 2:10, if you break any part of the law you break it all. After thinking all this through I am left with one thought from John Newton. "Although my memory is fading, I remember 2 things; I am a great sinner and Christ is a great savior."

P.S. I commented on Ben's

In the Hands of a Merciful God

"Is there not in several respects, a remarkable resemblance between the case of Israel and our own? General wickedness then occasioned a

general visitation; and does not the same cause now produce the same effect? We likewise have sinned, and we are punished; and perhaps

these are only the beginning of sorrows. Perhaps the angel is now stretching out his hand over England to destroy it. O that the Lord would at

length say to him that destroyeth, 'It is enough; stay now thine hand!'"

This brings back memories of Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. Oh but how comforting to know that we deserve none other than to feel death a thousand times or more per second onward into eternity, and yet we do not feel it; mercy is to escape even one second's worth of that feeling. So why shouldn't we be in constant worship? I feel like we venture along the longest and hardest routes to come to a conclusion when the answers are before us in Scripture. That we should constantly pray, continually love, and worship in all things. It is a beautiful life when we stop trying to lead ourselves.

On a side note, I am a bit inspired by Jeremy's use last semester of "Dive deep. Drown willingly." I truly hate putting a mere hyphen, followed by my name, so I have come across something I may adopt myself...maybe:

Ad augusta per angusta ("to triumphs by struggles," or "to high places by narrow roads"),

Will Drake

PS - I commented on Ryan Stewart's "Freedom Within Limits... What?!"

Help, I'm drowning! ...in sin!

Throughout our discussion in class Tuesday, I kept coming back to a single problem. Everyone kept saying that innocent people were punished for David's sin, and they were asking why an innocent nation should ever be held responsible for a leader's sin. I sat there thinking, "Who said these israelites were innocent?". We've all sinned at least once-- probably in the last five minutes to be honest. As it says in Romans 6:23, the wages of sin is death, and since we have all sinned, we all deserve it.

Being the awesome sophomore that I am, I hadn't actually read the text before class on Tuesday, but having read it now, Wesley actually makes the same point.  On page 3, roman numeral II he says

"The rich, the poor, the high, the low
Have wander'd from his mild command;
The floods of wickedness o'erflow,
And deluge all the guilty land:
People and Priest lie drown'd in sin,
And Tophet yawns to take them in."

He doesn't really make it clear whether he is quoting someone else, or just being really poetic, but regardless he's saying that every one of us is guilty. Every one of us lies "drown'd in sin".  So the argument that "innocent people were punished for David's sin" is invalid.

So, what did we learn today? Ben is a horrible sophomore? John Wesley can be either exceptionally poetic or a thief? Reading the course texts is optional? All good answers.

Tune in next week, when I'll actually have time to read the text BEFORE class.

What I failed to comprehend the first time through Wesley's sermon was not context, or the underlying meanings and subtle pretenses of sins and individual indifference, it was really how this sermon from the 18th century can still be relevant in my life. Most people have been discussing sin nature, suffering and how God fits into these concepts. What I got out of this sermon was a deeper love for God in His saving grace.Wesley reminds me of how imperfect I am, and no matter what I can do on this Earth, the only thing that stands between me and condemnation is Christ sitting at the right hand of God mediating on my behalf. I didn't realize any of this until after church tonight really, Samantha and I were talking about how we had developed a habit of using Olsen-esque hand motions when we talk and I started thinking about Wesley again and how I hadn't thought at all about anything outside of the in-class discussion on his sermon. Typically this doesn't bother me at all, but God wasn't letting me off easily this time, and grace is always a concept I've had trouble with, I want to somehow repay God for what He does for me and I can't which frustrates me to no end. 2 Samuel 24:17 was really what brought me back to this thought. This opening verse in Wesley's sermon hit me hard when I reread it, Davids admission of guilt and admonishment of how he had sinned yet the lamb had not is such a beautiful description of God's grace and how we can never deserve His love but He takes no wrong into account after our redemption through Christ. Definitely something I needed to hear, not on an intellectual level but on a personal level.

p.s. commented on chloe rush's post

Some Things Never Change

You would think that John Wesley's sermon would have been easy to read being that it was only five pages. After reading its content, I discovered that this was going to be a hard pill to swallow.

The first blow in the stomach for me was actually the last part of his sermon: " London, Nov. 7, 1775". It was scary to see how relevant this 236 year-old sermon was to me. How could I not learn from the people of the past to not repeat their mistakes? how could I let myself become trapped in the idea that some things never change? Some things NEED to change, and I believe Wesley is suggesting that the change needs to start with examining ourselves, to see whether we are the problem or solution, the gas or the water.

The other point that I got from this sermon was enough for me to fall on my face in repentance. This was in the first line of the text: "Lo, I have sinned, and I have done wickedly: But these sheep, what have they done?". Could we admit the same? Could we own up to our actions? I fall down on my face at this point: Lo, I have sinned, and I continue to behave wickedly: But what of the lamb on the cross? What has He done?



p.s. i commented on Anna Rhodes post

The High Price of Sugar

They give us a pair of linen drawers for our whole garment twice a year. When we work at the sugar canes, and the mill snatches hold of a finger, they cut off the hand; and when we attempt to run away, they cut off the leg; both cases have happened to me. This is the price at which you eat sugar in Europe. Yet when my mother sold me for ten patagons on the coast of Guinea, she said to me: ‘My dear child, bless our fetiches, adore them for ever; they will make thee live happily; thou hast the honor of being the slave of our lords, the whites, which is making the fortune of thy father and mother.

I'm fighting down the urge to start off like the late famous radio show:

"You know what makes me sick..."

It's a sad day when we put human beings through this so we can have trivial luxuries like sugar, or more recently, diamonds. One of my favorite quotes is from the famed historian George Santayana: "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The question is, after everything we have done, automobiles, aircraft, the harnessing of electricity, has humanity really progressed beyond enslaving other human beings in order to produce luxuries so that we can live nice, comfortable lives? Our problem is that we have progressed in the physical world, but our mindsets have yet to leave the primeval state.

~Cody Martin

P.S. I commented on Hunter Joplin's

P.P.S. somehow I was thinking of this song when I wrote this, just watch the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sgycukafqQ&ob=av2e

It's time to focus on the Reading.

 I found that most people want to focus on suffering when they discuss Wesley's sermon. However, if you will actually read the context and meaning of the sermon, he's not even speaking on suffering. He's speaking on liberty and what liberty actually is. While I don't understand fully what liberty is, I do understand what it is not. Liberty is not freedom from suffering, Wesley is painting a bigger picture that we are causing our own suffering because of our misinterpretation of liberty. So here are a few direct quotes of what the sermon actually says, maybe you should actually read it and find the actual meaning instead of shouting out things from thin air.

"Grievous enough is this calamity, which multitudes every day suffer. But I do not know whether many more do not labour under a still more grievous calamity. It is a great affliction to be deprived of bread; but it is a still greater to be deprived of our senses. And this is the case with thousands upon thousands of our countrymen at this day. Wide-spread poverty I have seen in several years ago. But so widespread a lunacy I never saw, nor, I believe the oldest man alive. Thousands of plain, honest people throughout the land are driven utterly out of their senses, by means of the poison which is so diligently spread through every city and town in the kingdom. They are screaming out for liberty while they have it in their hands, while they actually possess it; and to so great an extent, that the like is not known in any other nation under heaven; whether we mean civil liberty, a liberty of enjoying all our legal property, - or religious liberty, a liberty of worshiping God according to the dictates of our own conscience. therefore all those who are either passionately or dolefully crying out, "Bondage! Slavery!" while there is no more danger of any such thing, than there is of the sky falling upon their head, are utterly distracted; their reason is gone; their intellects are quite confounded. Indeed, many of these have lately recovered their senses; yet are there multitudes still remaining, who are in this respect as perfectly mad as any of the inhabitants of Bedlam"

"Real liberty, meantime, is trampled underfoot, and is lost in anarchy and confusion."

Because everyone got so Biblical for some reason, I guess I will too. I'll take my liberty(haha) to quote Proverbs 18:2 "A fool does not delight in understanding, but only wants to show off his opinions."
Amen.

commented on Rachel's "Star Spangled Banner" His Beloved's "Suffering,,Difficult but essential" and Kelsey Parrish's "Why Can't We Just Admit To Our Bad Deeds?"

A MESS

Rachel pretty much said it all in her post. But, I would just like to harp on the preciousness of the document we were able to read. We are taught all about the American Revalution and how is was a great and honorable thing... but do we really know? I am... I wasn't there. How much have we ever really searched out what the people on the other side have said about the matter. Wesley's writing is a prime example. It was unfortunate that we talked so much about suffering when that wasn't even Wesley's point. He says that the suffering they thought they were afflicted under was really a result of a misunderstanding of what liberty really is (and a lack of intellect at all)... mean while, he says real liberty is being "stamped on the ground amidst the calamity and confusion." I'm not saying every thing we know is a lie and it was really the revolutionists that were evil and la, la, la. But I am saying that we have a man of God here, who makes valid, intelligent, and scriptural arguments against the beginnings of the revolution. I just want you to think. This is in no way to dishonor men who died to give us "liberty"- actions trickle down from the head. They were following orders. They believed in the cause that there superiors told them. So, by looking at this argument from someone on the opposing side of the American Revolution... what do we know to be truly the cause? The Civil War was just about States Rights, right? Do you feel the same about the nasty British ? I think it is such an honor that Honors exposes us to stuff like this. To, if nothing else, get us thinking.

I commented on Rachel's

Let's Be Who We Say We Are

Today I’m going to try to keep it simple and focus on a single aspect of Wesley’s sermon. In section eight it says, “Now let each of us lay his hand upon his heart and say, “Lord is it I?” This made me freak out! I wanted to scream and cry at the same moment.

As I was reading Wesley’s sermon I felt like he was talking to American Christians today. He talked about luxury, sloth, materialism, and injustice. Does it sound familiar? Americans live extremely comfortably. We have so many conveniences that give us so much time...but yet somehow we don’t have time. We have become so comfortable. Even though Wesley was addressing the people of England, I believe he could have said the same things to American Christians today.

In section nine it says, “Renounce every way of acting, however gainful, which is contrary either to justice or mercy.” I look at this verse and I think, “Where is the Church?” Are we doing enough? Are we living and being the people we say we are? Now if anything is convicting, that definitely is. The excerpt from his sermon reminds me of the Bible verse “… to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:8). Have we taken a good look at ourselves? I know I get so busy I forget to look. I get caught up in my church-thing, and loose track. Am I doing justly? Do I love mercy? Or, am I acting in a way that is counter to justice or mercy? How does that reflect on my relationship with God, and my “Christian life?” A life that act justly and mercifully is going to look for ways to lift people out of hard times, and to stand up for those being treated wrong. It sounds uncomfortable doesn’t it, but what a challenge! And what a blessing when we allow God to make us uncomfortable, as we admit our mistakes and look to love like he loves us.

P. S. I commented on Kelsey Parrish's Blog

Two things about the slave scene that really stuck out to me:

1. The slave's mother was the one who sold him
2. The quote where he says, "That's the price of your eating sugar in Europe." 

This might be a really farfetched idea but that's what Honors is all about, right?  I think that Voltaire wanted the slave to represent the New World and his mother, who sold him, to represent England the "mother"- country. The land in the New World was never owned until the Europeans  came because the Indians believed that land was too sacred to be bought and sold, just as human beings were not meant to be owned. However, the European settlers, especially the conquistadors, disregarded these beliefs and treated the land as property just as they had in Europe. While the majority of settlers came to America in search of  refuge and new opportunities, the slave that Candide meets was forced to leave his country and found bondage instead of freedom.

2.  "That's the price of your eating sugar in Europe." When I first read this quote, I couldn't help but think about the real price of our freedom. Living in such a safe country, we tend to forget how much was sacrificed so that our families could feel safe, for the most part, as they go about their daily lives. Freedom is our sugar. We could live without it, but who would want to?! However, the majority of nations in this world have never tasted complete freedom like we have. Here, whether Voltaire intended him to or not, the slave represents everything that America (especially our troops and Founding Fathers) has endured to ensure our safety and protect other nations as best we can so that they may "eat sugar".      
  

Suffering,, Difficult but essential

In the discussion in class on Tuesday, we talked about suffering and the reasons we suffer. Wesley points out that the main cause of our suffering is our own sin. Suffering can be result of our sin, but who is to say that it is the only cause of our suffering. Suffering in our lives is common. We know it well, it is something each of has experienced. I believe suffering is necessary for each of us so that we can learn and it makes us as individuals stronger. I disagree with Wesley on the point of our sin being the cause of our suffering. God is not some cruel God who lets all this happen to us in order to punish us. He doesn't do it out of spite or for reasons just to be mean to us. God allows us to suffer for some reasons to teach us to trust him more. He allows it to show us just how powerful he is and even just to simply show us His Glory.
       I believe suffering is essential for each and every one of us. Without suffering we would not need hope. Without suffering we would not need God. Suffering, although it can be very hard and long, it grows us closer our Savior. It brings us closer to God and stronger individuals in general.

p.s I commented on Katelyn's post

Freedom within limits... What?!

"Here is slavery, real slavery indeed, most properly so called. For the regular, legal, constitutional form of government is no more. Here is real, not imaginary, bondage: Not the shadow of English liberty is left. Not only no liberty of the press is allowed, -- none dare print a page, or a line, unless it be exactly conformable to the sentiments of our lords, the people, -- but no liberty of speech. Their tongue is not their own. None must dare to utter one word, either in favour of King George, or in disfavour of the idol they have set up, -- the new, illegal, unconstitutional government, utterly unknown to us and to our forefathers. Here is no religious liberty; no liberty of conscience for them that 'honour the king,' and whom, consequently, a sense of duty prompts them to defend from the vile calumnies continually vented against him. Here is no civil liberty; no enjoying the fruit of their labour, any further than the populace pleases. A man has no security for his trade, his house, his property, unless he will swim with the stream. Nay, he has no security for his life, if his popular neighbour has a mind to cut his throat: For there is no law; and no legal magistrate to take cognizance of offences. There is the gulf of tyranny, -- of arbitrary power on one hand, and of anarchy on the other."

I realize this is one loooooong quote, but I couldn't just pick and choose bits of it. I believe that John Wesley has a good point here. When I first looked at it, I thought to myself, "Wow, he is really twisting the facts to make Great Britain seem like the only place where good exists/existed upon this earth. The only way to be happy is to have our Lord and King ruling over you." (Imagine that said in a stuffy Lordly voice because that's what was in my head). But then I read it and started thinking to myself that he made some good points, and that his statements can apply to more than just England. It applies even to us today. There are laws in the USA that prevent us from doing certain things. Does that mean we are not truly free? Some would think that since we can't kill someone without consequences we are not truly free. Think about it... We could go fishing, build a house, sit and read a book, or do anything but kill a person. Just because you can't do one thing doesn't mean you're not free. It all depends on the way that you view things. So there's a few of my thoughts. Hope you like!

P.S.-- I commented on "Laissez Fair and the Economy" by Meghan

My take on suffering

So kind of going off of what we talked about in class Tuesday, I’m going to write about the suffering of others. In part II.8., what I think Wesley is saying is that part of the reason for people suffering is because we aren’t doing anything about it. I think a lot of Christians are comfortable with sitting in church, singing, tithing, praying and that’s the end of it. Maybe they’ll even give to the Annie Armstrong Christmas offering or pay for someone to go but they won’t go themselves. It doesn’t matter whose fault it is for people’s suffering, but what the church (as in the global body of believers) does about it. The Disciples asked Jesus whose sin it was that had caused a man to be cripple and He straight up told them that it didn’t matter, but what does matter is what He said the two most important commandments are, love God, love others. Wesley does say, “let us pursue this thought till we are deeply sensible of our sins, as one great cause of their sufferings.” and I do believe that our sins corrupted the world, including the disasters as well as other suffering, like hunger or slavery. It’s because the world sins that the world suffers.